CS Wishlist

[Big Ivan]

For EF/WF/RS

Bunker & pillbox busting (destruction). For example two 16" shells hitting a bunker and there would be a big hole in the ground where a bunker use to sit, troops gone no need for bodies or parts. There has to be a way that with enough firepower the bunker would disappear. Pillboxes maybe more firepower. I'd stay away from building them within the time span scale of a scenario. They are involved engineering feats that take longer than 20 turns, 2 hours to build and leave it at that. (Sorry the metallurgical engineer is coming out in me)

Full hex bridge destruction. Needs to be a way to blow full bridge spanning a hex within the time span of a longer scenario and enough engineer units placing charges.

Rubble creation: Kind of the same idea with bunker busting. With enough firepower the town/suburb/city hex would rubble with in the time scale of a scenario. 

AF rule and retreat. When a tank retreats it shows its back side to the enemy. Not sure how you fix that within the game scale but I have lost more tanks to that issue than I can count. 

Cavalry & Motorcycle troops. I've noticed that when they are loaded and get shot at, they king of get blown out of the saddle and the transport remains. I would think the transport would sustain an equal amount of damage most of the time and if any troops SP's would survive they would immediately dismount after the first attack.

Tank riders. We all know tank riders are extremely susceptible to incoming fire. After the first shot and if some SP's survived wouldn't it be prudent that they would immediately dismount and therefore not be as easy a target to kill? 

Artillery unit strength points. Before JTCS 2.02, in EF a lot of the Soviet guns were 4-6 strength points and after JTCS a lot of them went to two strength points. We all know that an attack into a hex is based on firepower(attack strength) at a range plus the amount of strength points conducting the attack. By reducing the strength points in essence the effectiveness of those units was greatly reduced IMO.

On board aircraft. I've been thinking about this one a lot lately and IMHO they should be gone, removed from the game. We are playing a turn based game that is for the most part somewhat fluid but not fully fluid with respect to the ground units. Aircraft on the other hand operate in fully fluid form/mode flying over the battlefield at 200+ miles an hour and shouldn't stop in a hex to wait for the opponent to complete his turn. The way they currently handle airstrikes in the game is the mechanism we should move forward with. Mind you when helicopters arrive in Korea they should be handled like they are in CSME which is not a bad mechanism. I don't ever expect to see helicopters in WWII. 

Good points.
Bunkers/Pillboxes - destruction agreed. But even a 16" shell would almost need a direct hit on a pillbox.
Patton used 155mm and 8" guns to fire direct at Pillboxes. They had the great, and desired effect. But, it cannot be always duplicated in the game against the troopers in the pillbox and never cause the destruction of the pillbox.
Building the Pillbox should never be part of the game unless they factor in the curing of the concrete. Way to out of scale.
Full Hex Bridge destruction - always thought that was a game engine issue. Hexsides recognized. Full hexes not. (Not a programmer so do not know the way it would work).
Rubble - I thought that was going to be addressed a long time ago. Must have been put on the back burner.
AF - to me it was addressed in the optional rule. I like it off but I see it as a unit cohesion issue that created opportunities for more rear shots.
CAV and MC troopers - yes there should have be incremental damage to the transport (more so for the fleshly ones).
TANK RIDERS - historically, did they drop off at the first shots?
Artillery SP and effectiveness - part of the tinkering (that should have been left to the scenario designer) that had an unexpected/unintended effect on the game.
ON BOARD AIRCRAFT - definitely with you on this one.



HSL

I especially love the idea of built up hexes being reduced to rubble. This needs to happen.

I like that AF is an optional rule. I don't play with it turned on any more, as I don't think it fits with the game scale, but I understand that others like it.

Definitely believe that tank riders should drop off their carrying tanks after taking fire (and damage).

Definitely don't introduce building of bunkers, pillboxes or trenches into the game - again, not in the game's scale.

On board aircraft = terrible idea. Won't play a scenario that includes them.

If it can be done within the confines of the game engine, the option to be able destroy a full-hex bridge would be a good addition. Might be best handled as a scenario design feature, i.e. bridges start wired for demo, as opposed to having engineer units with the ability to prepare them within the game for demolition (out of game scale?).

Suggestions of my own:

"Airstrikes should be more like artillery strikes, targeting all units within a particular hex.

Artillery strikes should occupy a hex for a full turn, which would not permit units moving through hexes to avoid being struck.

If there's any way to do counter-battery fire, i.e. identify artillery units (especially rocket units) locations out of line of sight, it would be welcome."

Got some good ideas there Schwerpunkt75 especially the artillery being around for a full turn. Something like residual firepower in the old ASL series.

Hmmm, airstrikes affecting all units in a hex instead of a single unit? I'll have to think about that one a bit. Not taking anything away from HSL's comment I have hit some juicy targets with airstrikes and a few trucks and wagons too! But it seems more the ladder than the former so Ed has a point.

Counter battery fire: Not sure how we could do this within the confines of the engine. Believe me, I'd like to see it to but getting there is another story. Problem is it would almost always have to be scattered fire and unless you hit a truck or HQ you won't do much.

Dev wrote:
"One of my wants has always been color coordinated command structures.

Dependent on the number of separate commands on the map in any scenario, have the ability to hard set them in different colors so you can "keep" them together within their lower HQs command ranges."

I'm liking this idea a lot, it would make command structure so much easier to work with Dev.



Finally anyone have thoughts on splitting or combining like units? I tossed this out a few years ago as a way to consolidate units on the map or split your forces so you have more spotting eyes on the battle field. It would have to be done by SP and could only be like units(PzIVh with PzIVh; US '44 infantry with US '44 infantry etc). You can do it in TOAW and I always thought it was a nice feature.